I'll bet. R&D for audio in those days was not what it is now, I knew these folks a basement full of parts and a lost weekend.
Of course, you know Dick Sequerra personally, and could call him and ask him about it.
Personally, I have a Marantz 10 and I think it is one of the finest pieced of electronics ever made.
Personally, I have a Marantz 10 and I think it is one of the finest pieced of electronics ever made.
Then your experience is very limited. It was the best of its type in its day. But even for a radio tuner it has been eclipsed. What is state of the art in one era becomes ordinary in another and ancient history in the next. Radio tuners have come a long way in 40 years. But that is only one tiny corner of electronics. In the larger scheme of things, far more ambitious equipment has always been part of the universe of electronic equipment. Anyone who has any familiarity with industrial or military electroncs knows that fact. This kind of equipment retains its market value for reasons of nostalgia by collectors alone. It's the kind of thing appreciated by those who cling to past memories. There is old equipment of various kinds which have not been surpassed but this is not one of them.
Radio tuners that must receive very faint signals such as for radiotelescopes that detect RF from distant galaxies and for spacecraft such as Voyager which has left the solar system are in another world compared to anything ever offered on the commercial market. Marantz 10B appeared before the first commercial communications satellite was launched. The need by industry and the military for that kind of tuner didn't exist yet.
Insofar as build quality is concerned, it is unlikely that Marantz 10B would have met mil specs for many reasons. I know, my father was the quality control manager for Hazeltine Electronics for fourteen years. They built only military electronics. Having worked in the Bell system for many years myself, it is unlikely that its methods of construction or performance would have been acceptable in the telephone network either. Industrial and military criteria for ruggedness and ability to perform in extreme environments alone set those two classes of electronics apart from commercial equipment. The cost of producing them simply isn't justified or competitive on the commercial market.
Insofar as build quality is concerned, it is unlikely that Marantz 10B would have met mil specs for many reasons. I know, my father was the quality control manager for Hazeltine Electronics for fourteen years. They built only military electronics. Having worked in the Bell system for many years myself, it is unlikely that its methods of construction or performance would have been acceptable in the telephone network either. Industrial and military criteria for ruggedness and ability to perform in extreme environments alone set those two classes of electronics apart from commercial equipment. The cost of producing them simply isn't justified or competitive on the commercial market.
The first time I saw a phase locked loop was around 1970. I was working at Bethlehem Steel evaluating an experimental prototype of a laser measuring device produced by General Electric. It used a laser, a series of beam splitter prisms and mirrors, and worked by measuring the doppler shift of reflected light as the steel passed under it. The PLL incorporated a Wavetek VCO and was hand built. By itself, the PLL cost tens of thousands of dollars to build. Shortly after, you could buy one on a chip for a few dollars. That kind of technology just wasn't availble on the commercial market in the 1960s when Marantz 10B was produced.
Sure, and even though I'd love a 10B for the collector and classic value, as well as it looking classy in an old school way, I'd rather have the Sony for day to day use especially in the more crowded spectrum of today.
Whilst I can appreciate the great design of the time with the available tech of the day, doesn't mean I go all misty eyed about it when I simply want it to do what it was designed for.
In the US, the FM radio "spectrum" is divided the same way it always was, at 200 khz intervals. It runs from about 87 to about 107 Mhz. In the 1960s, audio hobbyist magazines reported logging as many as 57 different FM radio stations in the NYC metro area from the better FM tuners with a good antenna. Selectivity is the ability of a radio receiver to reject adjacent channel interference. To accomplish this, the IF stage is designed and critically aligned to have very steep slopes, a very sharp multistage amplifier/bandpass filter. Failure to achieve high selectivity results in heterodyne distortion. The use of ceramic filters unknown in the early 1960s when Marantz 10B was designed makes excellent selectivity possible. Also, the use of quartz oscillators and PLLs lock FM stations right on frequency without oscillator drift. PLLs make stereo multiplex decoder performance far better than early versions with their whistles and chirps. Aligning the tuner in an oven at operating temperature the way 10B was is not necessary to achieve that kind of performance.
The same technological advances contributed to the improvement of the performance of NTSC analog color television in the US as well.
You have to listen to a Marantz 10 to appreciate it, it sounds better than the SONY XDR-FIHD. I know, because I have both in my sound system at the moment.
However, the SONY is very interesting, and with a few changes to the audio output, it might be a contender.
However, the SONY is very interesting, and with a few changes to the audio output, it might be a contender.
Ha,ha, I have the same as we speak. You cannot compare the sound of the two.
The RF performance of the Sony walks all over any vintage (or modern for that matter) FM tuner I've compared it to. You're right, with some mods to the audio output the Sony would be a world beater.
I have used a few of the Sony's. They do pick up a lot of stations, the sound quality is more than adequate. What no one else seems to have a problem with is input overload. A very strong station will come in with a weaker one! The classic capture of an analog FM station is gone so you actually can hear two stations at once.
The AM section does not pick up many stations and also can overload. Unlike the review posted here the AM section is wanting.
Dick Sequerra thinks so too, he is the one who recommended it to me. What is important here, is that a GOOD designer works with the materials at hand, and makes the best possible. Where Sony and many other companies fall short, is the audio coupling caps, and circuitry following the tour-de-force that they did with the RF chip. This happens because only SPECS are considered important, and overall listening quality is disregarded, because as 'everybody' knows, people can't hear the difference in a double-blind test. I would just LOVE to test those ceramic coupling caps in the Sony, sometime, and compare them, even to PPS, and better yet, Polypropylene.
Last edited:
Any AM section is only as good as it's antenna. The AM section on my sample is pretty good. The sound could be better, even for an AM section.
I use an external AM antenna! I get lot's of interference from other signal sources. Also it really is an unbalanced AM input. It has been a number of years since anyone has really bothered to make a high quality AM Tuner. You might have noticed AM stations now transmit with an HF boost even though there is not a matching cut in the receiver's specifications.
I would hope so. I use a 3' tunable loop. The audio quality on AM could be better but then it's AM.
Maybe you live in a bad area or have a bad sample.
Here's a link to more than you'll ever want to know about the Sony.
http://ham-radio.com/k6sti/xdr-f1hd.htm
Last edited:
Thanks Hags, I want it all! After all, I actually design and modify audio equipment, and have already modified the Sony for analog only reception. Hopefully, analog output modification will follow.
It's interesting with all this talk about tuner performance that Revox products were never brought up. After a careful alignment, they are easily the nicest tuners I have ever used. These were used by many radio stations to monitor their signals when they were produced.
One of the few tuners I would make an effort to own. My Marantz 2120 that I've aligned and modified a little performs - okay. The Revox easily walks all over the Marantz.
The Carver TX-11a performs okay (did warranty service, same as Revox) as does the Nakamichi ST-7 (wouldn't mind that one either, Revox is still much better). Most other popular tuners need a lot of help before they matter though. Earlier Ceramic filters are really awful compared to the current ones. Yes, I match them. However the yield is much better these days (thank god!). I would love to have a Marantz 2130. That thing looks like it could really perform after a bit of work. It's far better than the 2120 I have.
I wonder when the time will come when the only signal that can be received by an analog tuner will be the one you generate yourself? That's probably not that far away. Too bad.
-Chris
One of the few tuners I would make an effort to own. My Marantz 2120 that I've aligned and modified a little performs - okay. The Revox easily walks all over the Marantz.
The Carver TX-11a performs okay (did warranty service, same as Revox) as does the Nakamichi ST-7 (wouldn't mind that one either, Revox is still much better). Most other popular tuners need a lot of help before they matter though. Earlier Ceramic filters are really awful compared to the current ones. Yes, I match them. However the yield is much better these days (thank god!). I would love to have a Marantz 2130. That thing looks like it could really perform after a bit of work. It's far better than the 2120 I have.
I wonder when the time will come when the only signal that can be received by an analog tuner will be the one you generate yourself? That's probably not that far away. Too bad.
-Chris
Hi ES,
I will always maintain that a properly designed power supply will eliminate most line effects within normal AC mains tolerance. For amplifiers, that usually means a regulated supply for each voltage amp stage (as in a Marantz 300DC - nice design, BTW). For starters, using a well designed EI core with electrostatic screen helps. Common mode line filters right in the AC power entry would probably help as well. If the power supply isn't well executed, the product suffers. Non-believers only need to gaze inside some good test equipment for all the proof they should need. Start with older HP and work your way up to a current spec -an from any major manufacturer.
It's pretty sad out there. Don't look too hard for fear of a real let down where build / design quality is concerned. One thing they did do well back in the Marantz 10 days. They did generally do a better job of running electronic parts well within their ratings. They were probably not distracted so much with, how what you put it? Audio trash ideals and what sounds good. It would be nice it the stuff was reliable again for a start. One thing I have noticed is that when parts are operating within their ratings, they are usually also operating more linearly. That means lower distortion and probably lower noise as well. That is especially true with designers of current tube equipment.
-Chris
I will always maintain that a properly designed power supply will eliminate most line effects within normal AC mains tolerance. For amplifiers, that usually means a regulated supply for each voltage amp stage (as in a Marantz 300DC - nice design, BTW). For starters, using a well designed EI core with electrostatic screen helps. Common mode line filters right in the AC power entry would probably help as well. If the power supply isn't well executed, the product suffers. Non-believers only need to gaze inside some good test equipment for all the proof they should need. Start with older HP and work your way up to a current spec -an from any major manufacturer.
That's true for the most part, but it could be better. However, I often can not replicate some noise problems that older equipment can suffer from. I just inspect and fix the power supplies, then look at the performance to find other issues. Being in a basement below ground also helps to reduce ambient RF noise. I do have one offending bit of equipment though. It's a Philips PM-3070 that takes FM tuners off the air. I had to replace it with another scope as I couldn't do any alignment with that thing operating!
No, I made sure they were on a different phase, and everything on the bench comes off the same phase. Did the same thing with the sound systems.
Which actually is a problem when looking for poor grounding and just generally poor product layout. Experiments do come out well though, I get numbers close to what the math suggests.
Your toys are larger, so you must have more fun!
I am pretty sure ours is too small.
All kinds of problems show up in consumer gear. Most "high end" products are designed and built by small companies that do not have the expertise in all the areas they should have. Of course, the power supply is a major problem area. Internet "modders" really don't help the situation either, they tend to make things much worse from what I see. Even in large companies, there is no shortage of major goofs in power supply design. One large company very carefully supplied +- 8 VDC to a National chip rated for +- 6 VDC abs max (electronic volume, balance and EQ). Another ran the supply caps above their marked working voltage. The list goes on and on and on ... Perhaps the next most serious problem would be internal ambient temperature, and individual component temperatures. One wonders.
It's pretty sad out there. Don't look too hard for fear of a real let down where build / design quality is concerned. One thing they did do well back in the Marantz 10 days. They did generally do a better job of running electronic parts well within their ratings. They were probably not distracted so much with, how what you put it? Audio trash ideals and what sounds good. It would be nice it the stuff was reliable again for a start. One thing I have noticed is that when parts are operating within their ratings, they are usually also operating more linearly. That means lower distortion and probably lower noise as well. That is especially true with designers of current tube equipment.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.